Tom van Heeswijk MSc Thesis Landscape Architecture PERCEIVING WITHOUT GRIEVING March 2016 Wageningen UR

1st supervisor: Sven Stremke Shaping solar energy for an energy neutral Zeeburgereiland () 2nd supervisor: Rudi van Etteger

Table (..@..) Attributes influencing perception of renewable energy infrastructure

In Amsterdam (the ) all new constructi on projects from 2015 and later must be Category Influential attribute Literature* energy neutral (i.e. avoiding fossil fuel use at buildings’ energy consumpti on and increasing Physical Technology shape 17, 35, 40, 26, 48 energy effi ciency). Close to Amsterdam’s city center, Zeeburgereiland is planned as dynamic Land-use shape 1, 18, 23, 25, 30 - Descriptive statistics (means, percentages) Colour 1, 3, 4, 17, 18, 25, 35, 42, 43, 23, 30, 48 - Independent samples T-tests and att racti ve island for dwelling and recreati on. To make Zeeburgereiland an energy- neutral Size 1, 4, 10, 13, 17, 23, 25, 26, 35, 37, 42, 43 - Multiple regression analysis Literature review Survey 8, 16, 4, 39, 40 neighbourhood the use of renewable energy (RE) is necessary. Texture 12, 23, 25, 26, 35, 48 Contrast 25, 35, 23, 25, 30, 26, 48 However oppositi on against RE technologies such as wind turbines and solar parks occurs Selecting (keywords and Identifying and Compose and pre-testing Noise 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 17, 18, 21, 28, 43, 4, 45 oft en through visual impact, delaying or even cancelling RE developments. Social acceptance is snowballing) and selecting locations questionnaire Smell 4, 21 summarizing documents Cumulative effects neighbouring projects 2, 9, 17 therefore crucial in RE’s success. This thesis tended to fi nd out which physical and psychological Gathering respondents Statistical analysis in Shadow flicker 6, 10, 17, 42 on-site and online SPSS Blade glint 17 att ributes infl uence people’s liking and disliking of RE, consequently formulati ng implicati ons for Electromagnetic interference 17, 42, 27, 39, 40, 45 Contextual Proximity to technology 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 22, 28, 35, design that could account for public preference. 37, 42, 43, 7, 33, 40 Proximity to perceived important features 4, 9, 13, 8 Conclusions Design Inspiration (e.g. LAGI) Landscape context 1, 4, 6, 9, 13, 15, 17, 19, 22, 28, 32, 35, 37, (literature review + survey) 42, 4, 40, 44, 26, 33 Main research questi on: Physical and Visual impact 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, “why do people like or dislike renewable energy percepti ble from public space and which Scopus: contextual 22, 25, 28, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43 “renewable energy” OR energy AND perception 23, 30, 41, 41, 27, 33, 39, 40, 44, 8, 20, 24, implicati ons for design could account for public preference?” AND landscape 29, 45 -> 149 documents -> 30 (+17 Political and Energy policy opinion 1, 9, 16, 29, 34 Vision and Estimating energy institutional snowballing) Site analysis concept balance Political self-efficacy 1, 6, 15, 16, 19, 38 Institutional capacity 1, 6, 15, 16, 19, 46 Attitude to technology in general 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 28, 31, 41, 42, 47, 11, 41, 46, 4, 41, 4, 44, 29, 34 Security of supply 3, 5, 9, 16, 22, 36, 45 Public participation and consultation, degree 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, ZEEBURGEREILAND ^ Methodological framework. (1) A literature review, (2) a survey and AMSTERDAM of information 22, 28, 31, 38, 42, 43, 47, 20, 4, 4, 27, 39, (3) local site characteristi cs informed the design for an energy neutral 44, 29, 45 Perception of developer 1, 11, 13, 16, 19, 32, 34, 43, 47, 44 Zeeburgereiland. Procedural and distributional justice 15, 18, 20, 21, 38, 43, 44, 45 Socio-economic Shareholding 1, 5, 9, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 31, 32, 42, 43, 30, 46 Effect on property values 9, 13, 18, 36, 39, 45 > Att ributes infl uencing percepti ons of renewable energy infrastructure. Social impact 2, 16 Social and Social influence (media, social networks) 1, 6, 11, 15, 19, 20, 21, 28, 42, 29 Visual impact is oft en a main concern as menti oned in found literature. communicative Symbolic Representation of technology 1, 3, 9, 10, 11, 13, 28, 8, 45 0 25 50 100 km Local Place and identity processes 1, 21, 22, 28, 32, 38, 43, 7, 40, 44, 45 v Historical wind mills are well known while modern wind turbines are Local or community benefit and control 1, 5, 9, 13, 16, 19, 20, 31, 32, 42, 43, 20, 46, 29, 34, 45 ^ Locati on of relati vely new in the landscape. Increasing familiarity over ti me of e.g. Local impacts of construction 9, 4 Amsterdam in the NIMBYism 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 28, 29, 38, wind turbines and solar parks might sti mulate increasing acceptance of 42, 43, 44, 45 Netherlands. Personal Previous experience and knowledge, 1, 4, 5, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, 20, 28, 35, 37, 41, such technologies as part of the landscape. environmental attitude 42, 47, 46, 4, 4, 33 Environment Local environment 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 13, 17, 19, 36, 42, 43, 8, 4, 4, 27, 29, 45 > Zeeburgereiland * Colours indicate the type of renewable energy considered in the paper ■ = wind, ■ = solar, ■ = hydro, ■ = geothermal, ■ = high voltage powerline, ■ = landscape element in general is close to the city center, with extensive 1 = Devine-Wright (2005), 2 = Graham et al. (2009), 3 = Thayer and Freeman (1987), 4 = Walker (1995), 5 = Krohn and Damborg (1999), 6 = Wolsink (2000), 7 = Vorkinn and Riese (2001), 8 = Tsoutsos et al. (2005), 9 = connecti vity. Warren et al. (2005), 10 = Bishop and Miller (2007), 11 = Devine-Wright (2007), 12 = Thayer (1994), 13 = Ellis et al. (2007), 14 = Horst (2007), 15 = Wolsink (2007), 16 = Wüstenhagen et al. (2007), 17 = Lothian (2008), 18 = Schweizer-Ries (2008), 19 = Toke et al. (2008), 20 = Zoellner et al. (2008), 21 = Devine-Wright (2009), 22 = Graham et al. (2009), 23 = Torres-Sibille et al. (2009), 24 = Margret-Gay et al. (2010), 25 = Rodrigues et al. (2010), 26 = Shang and Bishop (2000), 27 = Sumper et al. (2010), 28 = Swoff ord and Slattery (2010), 29 = West et al. (2010), 30 = Chiabrando et al. (2011), 31 = Musall and Kuik (2011), 32 = Pasqualetti (2011), 33 = Soini et al. (2011), 34 = Bronfman et al. (2012), 35 = Vries et al. (2012), 36 = Firestone et al. (2012), 37 = Molnarova et al. (2012), 38 = Bell et al. (2013), 39 = Cain and Nelson (2013), 40 = Devine-Wright and Batel (2013), 41 = ^ Historical wind mills at Kinderdijk, ^ Wind turbines near Dronten, the Kaldellis et al. (2013), 42 = Karydis (2013), 43 = Petrova (2013), 44 = Aas et al. (2014), 45 = Cohen et al. (2014), the Netherlands. Source: www.werelderfgoed. Netherlands. Source: www.annemiekmulder.nl. 46 = Tsantopoulos et al. (2014), 47 = Aitken (2010), 48 = Bell (1999) nl.

^ 4 Solar energy projects were chosen for the survey. More knowledge of solar energy percepti ons is needed (wind turbines already extended), and solar energy has numerous possibiliti es for further shaping in design, making it an interesti ng subject for landscape architecture. v The solar trees had higher rati ngs on the physical appearance than the solar parks. The largest eff Tableect sizes 5.6 Mean(‘strongest’ differences diff and erences) their significance were foundbetween at visualthe grouped appeal solar and parks shape and solar. trees

Solar parks4 Solar trees5 F (sig. 2-tailed) Effect size2

Mean1 (S.D.) Mean1 (S.D.)

Dislike / like 1,54 (1,40) 1,68 (1,21) 7,211 (0,380) 0,11 Visually appealing - 0,13 (1,62) 1,41 (1,19) 14,146 (0,000)** 1.16 Positive influence on surroundings 0,06 (1,45) 0,85 (1,37) 0,027 (0,000)** 0,57 Shape of panels/tree is attractive - 0,21 (1,34) 1,28 (1,24) 0,046 (0,000)** 1.17 Scale is acceptable 1,26 (1,44) 1,69 (1,19) 5,820 (0,006)** 0,34 Colours are non-disturbing 1,10 (1,57) 1,82 (1,33) 6,349 (0,000)** 0,50 Climate change is important 1,71 (1,26) 1,82 (1,13) 1,553 (0,439) 0,09 In favour of renewable energy Solar 2,16 (1,05) 2,07 (1,06) 0,112 (0,455) 0,09 Wind 1,60 (1,59) 1,79 (1,26) 5,680 (0,274) 0,14 Biomass 1,40 (1,35) 1,17 (1,27) 2,218 (0,146) 0,18 District heating 1,54 (1,40) 1,32 (1,31) 1,658 (0,166) 0,17 ^ + Most frequent positi ve feature: the solar energy project generates (renewable) energy; R.E. average3 1,76 (0,99) 1,71 (0,80) 3,681 (0,639) 0,06 - Most frequent negati ve feature: not able to be menti oned. Generally the solar trees are found more visually appealing than the solar parks. Although some think the solar trees are too prominent, many 1 On 7-point Likert scale: others appreciate the design or shape. At the solar parks appreciati on of looks are rare, respondents oft en refer to non-beauti ful views.

v Multi ple regression analysis illustrated as path diagrams. Arrows show magnitude of eff ect from one variable on another variable. In all 4 2 For effect size, Cohen’s d was calculated. 0.2 is small effect, 0.5 is medium effect and 0.8 is large effect 3 Mean of solar, wind, biomass, and district heating combined cases shape had the largest eff ect on visual appeal. I.e. if beta (β) from shape to visual appeal is 0,66 (Nijmegen), a 1-point increase in shape 4 Mean of solar parks in Ouddorp and Almere combined (on 7-point Likert scale) implies a 0,66-point increase in visual appeal. Personal investments in RE almost had no eff ect on general appreciati on. 5 Mean of solar trees in Oss and Nijmegen combined * Significant at 0,10 level ** Significant at 0,05 level

Ouddorp Almere Oss Nijmegen

Appearance Appearance Appearance Appearance

Shape Shape Shape Shape panels β 0,59 panels β 0,50 β 0,52 β 0,66

Visually r = 0,48 Appreciation Visually r = 0,24 Appreciation Visually r = 0,75 Appreciation Visually r = 0,31 Appreciation β 0,14 β 0,22 β 0,29 β 0,16 Scale appealing solar park Scale appealing solar park Scale appealing solar tree Scale appealing solar tree 2 2 2 2 R = 0,46 R2 = 0,35 R = 0,41 R2 = 0,12 R = 0,55 R2 = 0,57 R = 0,53 R2 = 0,38 β 0,03 β 0,11 β 0,02 β 0,02 Colour Colour Colour Colour β 0,01 β - 0,06 β 0,06 β 0,04 β 0,10 β 0,33 β 0,23 β - 0,15 β 0,003 β 0,02 β 0,41 β 0,24

R.E. general R.E. self R.E. general R.E. self R.E. general R.E. self R.E. general R.E. self Climate Climate Climate Climate application application application application application application application application

Conception Conception Conception Conception

> Master Thesis LAR-80436 | 1st supervisor: S. Stremke, 2nd supervisor: R. van Ett eger ZEEBURGEREILAND v Development of Zeeburgereiland. The casco forms the spine of the island, with large spaciousness of water around it. Extended connectivity, water views, and proximity to city center and rural areas carry high potential to 0. Shallow water between Amsterdam and Zuiderzee make dwelling and recreation attractive here.

1. Dredging of the waterway, establishment of ring dikes

Schellingwoude

Durgerdammerpolder Die Durgerdammer Die Oranjesluizen Afgesloten IJ

Het IJ Afgesloten IJ

Durgerdam IJ - eiland

Afsluitdijk 2. Completing the dikes, dumping silt between ring dikes. Remaining water is being pumped out. Zuiderzee Zuiderzee Zuiderzee Assorting terrain assin rwegb Spoo Dam Dredgings depot

haven Entrepot Stads Rietlanden

Zuider IJdijk

Het IJ Het IJ

3. Zeeburgereiland originates as a dumping island filled with silt Het Nieuwe Diep 1847 1894 1908

Top layer: mixture of sand and silt ^ 1847: the island was not made ^ In 1894 the first parts of the casco ^ 1908: the casco of the island yet. were constructed. were completed. Through dredging activities silt was deposited. Silt

^ Zeeburgereiland was made with ^ Concept for Zeeburgereiland’s design. Het IJ Binnen IJ Het IJ dikes forming the island edges. Silt was Calm oasis just outside the city center Schellingwouderbrug deposited between these dikes, ‘filling > Components of the concept. Concrete factory

Water Piet Heintunnel up’ the casco. purification

Zeeburgertunnel

Camping Military terrain Buiten IJ

Shooting range Buiten-IJ

Zeeburgbrug Amsterdamse Brug Implications for solar parks 1. Apply water, riparian vegetation, and colourful vegetation on panel 1950 1988 2015 fields for a richer landscape experience: more than just PV panels; ^ In 1950 the island served as ^ A sewage water purification ^ Nowadays (2015) the island 2. Accessible viewpoints looking over solar parks can offer an A green linear park through military terrain with a shooting plant was in 1988 the island’s main carries much openness where new interesting overview of the solar park with its surroundings. the neighbourhood range and barracks. function. housing is being built. Implications smaller scale solar energy > What shape might be found attractive, 1. Search for attractive shapes contributing to energy neutrality in representing comfort and could be multifunctional? neighbourhoods; Inspired from garden architecture, a pergola 2. ‘Attractive’ shapes can be inspired from: provides shade, shelter, and carries a ‘roof’ for - nature (like solar ‘trees’) solar energy. Integrating organic photovoltaics + = - familiar objects reminding people what they are comfortable with. Solar energy on large (OPV) in a pergola structure, multifunctional ‘OPV 3. Include multi-functionality for more added value to public space; and small scale 4. Interaction between RE and people is more interesting. sails’ above the street profile generate electricity. Pergola (www.gardenonline.nl) OPV pavillion (www.belectric.com)

^ OPV sails above the street profile. ^ The solar energy landscape consists of 5 typologies. Sub-neighbourhood RI-Oost is further detailed as masterplan. Water around the island has space for new solar islands, without interrupting boats and ships. v Masterplan of sub-neighbourhood RI-Oost on Zeeburgereiland. v Plan layers of sub-neighbourhood RI-Oost.

^ Solar energy is integrated as three ^ Buildings and sport fields in the middle typologies: solar islands (on the water), of the neighbourhood were already OPV sails (above the street profile), and planned, and based on Smits and OPV halls above sport fields (larger units Woldendorp (2008). Between buildings in the middle). there will be green spaces.

^ Trees follow the already planned ^ There will be two types of water street structure and will make a to cope with rainfall: narrow urban green neighbourhood, providing water lines within RI-Oost, and wider thermal comfort through shade and canals with green banks around the evapotranspiration. neighbourhood.

^ Linear pavements (brown) are newly ^ Bioswales form linear strips of designed and will provide plenty of colourful vegetation along the street walking space for pedestrians. profile accounting for slown down rainwater drainage.

> Master Thesis LAR-80436 | 1st supervisor: S. Stremke, 2nd supervisor: R. van Etteger DETAILS

< Location of cross section with OPV sail.

> Location of the solar highway on the existing A10 road.

PV ISLANDS 16.825.799 HOUSEHOLDS 11.000.000

OPV SAILS 2.086.605 PV TOTAL UTILITY 22.588.059 7.020.000 23.506.250

OPV HALLS USED ENERGY 2.057.950

A10 EXITS 1.228.518 ELECTRIC CARS 5.486.250 SOLAR HIGHWAY 389.187

ADDITIONAL ENERGY 918.191

^ Estimated energy balance (kWh/year), accounting for whole prospective ^ A new ‘solar highway’ above the existing A10 has 3 benefits: generating ^ OPV sails generate electricity and are partly connected with prospective Zeeburgereiland. The designed solar energy infrastructure is theoretically able to electricity, capturing CO2 from traffic, and keeping sound pollution away from buildings, while allowing diverse public space uses beneath them. achieve an almost energy neutral Zeeburgereiland. proximate houses.

^ OPV halls above the already planned sport fields in the middle of RI- ^ A linear park along the water edge is connected to a new restaurant integrated with the existing pier (right). Oost. The OPV sails are semitransparent and provide a subtle shade underneath. The sails exist of OPV modules interconnected with cables v The new restaurant on piles refers to Amsterdam’s peat soil conditions and provides an elevated view of the transporting the electricity (there is some space between modules). solar island, lake Buiten-IJ and surroundings. People can access the pier any time, subsequently deciding if they want to experience a more elevated view on the restaurant’s terrace during opening hours. v Metal frames for OPV sails are high enough for multiple sport uses.

> Master Thesis LAR-80436 | 1st supervisor: S. Stremke, 2nd supervisor: R. van Etteger